[Senate Report 107-338]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 751
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     107-338

======================================================================



 
      RESTORE THE APALACHICOLA RIVER ECOSYSTEM (RARE) ACT OF 2002

                                _______
                                

               November 12, 2002.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Jeffords, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                         [to accompany S. 2730]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 
referred a bill (S. 2730) to modify certain water resources 
projects for the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, 
Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, having considered the same 
reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that 
the bill do pass.

    General Statement, Background, and Objectives of the Legislation

    The bill amends the existing authorization for the project 
for navigation, Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, 
located in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, authorized by section 
2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 17, chapter 19), and 
modified by the first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 
Stat. 635, chapter 595), and the project for the West Point 
Reservoir, Chattahoochee River, Georgia, authorized by section 
203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182) to 
deauthorize the channel between the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 
near Apalachicola, Florida to the Jim Woodruff Dam near 
Chattahoochee, Florida and to authorize the development of a 
restoration plan.
    The Apalachicola River is located in northwest Florida. It 
is home to a bottomland hardwood forest, lakes, ponds, 
wetlands, and sloughs. These sloughs deliver fresh water to 
tupelo honey trees located in the river basin. The Apalachicola 
River provides key habitat for one endangered and two 
threatened species and a large sportfish population. Its waters 
empty into the Gulf of Mexico where oysters, Gulf shrimp, and 
blue crab can thrive on the brackish waters.
    The statutes cited above authorize the Army Corps of 
Engineers to maintain a 9-foot deep channel for year-round 
navigational use of the Apalachicola River. The Corps has never 
been able to maintain a 9-foot channel for year-round 
navigational use. The Corps has turned instead to the use of a 
combination of dredging and water releases to provide 
navigation windows for barge traffic.
    This approach has caused severe environmental damage to the 
Apalachicola River. Releases of large quantities of water for 
navigation windows has drastic effects on fish and wildlife, 
including one endangered species--the fat three-ridge mussel 
(Amblema neislerii)--and two threatened species the Gulf 
sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) and the purple 
bankclimber mussel (Elliptoideus sloatianus.) Water releases 
trigger spawning behavior for many fish species, leaving them 
stranded upstream in backwater areas when the water subsides, 
resulting in massive fish kills and the loss of future 
generations of fish. According to a letter dated June 7, 2000 
from then-Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 
Joseph Westphal, an April 2000 navigation window implemented by 
the Army Corps of Engineers resulted in an almost complete 
failure of sportfish spawn along the entire Apalachicola River 
and reservoirs upstream.
    Dredging of the Apalachicola River has destroyed 
approximately one-quarter of the banks of the Apalachicola 
River, in some instances leaving giant walls of sand--one of 
which is known as Sand Mountain. In a letter to the Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection dated April 23, 2002 
regarding Permit Modification No. 0129424-003, Permit No. 
0129424-001-DF, Gulf and Liberty Counties, Site 40 Rejuvenation 
Modification, the Army Corps measures the height of this 
mountain at 60 feet, plus or minus 8 feet. The disposal of 
large amounts of sand in and around the river and its 
tributaries has choked sloughs, cutting off water supply to 
surrounding habitat.
    The dredging of the Apalachicola River also threatens the 
local production of tupelo honey an industry that generates at 
least $2.4 million dollars a year in the Florida economy, 
according to the Florida Department of Agriculture statistics 
(Sept. 2002.) The many sloughs in the Apalachicola River basin 
are the main transportation route for fresh water, which is 
critical to the health of the tupelo trees. Because these 
sloughs are serving as dredged material disposal sites, fresh 
water cannot move through the river basin, cutting off the 
tupelo trees from their only source of water.
    Tupelo honey is not the only agricultural impact from the 
dredging of the Apalachicola River. Fresh water pulses from the 
Corps' water releases also affect the salinity of brackish 
water in Apalachicola Bay, which has been recognized by the 
State of Florida as an Outstanding Florida Water, by the 
Federal Government as a National Estuarine Reserve, and by the 
United Nations as an International Biosphere Reserve. Changes 
in salinity threaten the largest oyster harvesting area in the 
Gulf of Mexico which produces 90 percent of Florida's oysters, 
one of the principal nurseries for Gulf shrimp and blue crabs, 
and major commercial fishing operations.
    The combination of dredging and low commercial barge 
traffic makes the Apalachicola River the most expensive Corps 
river project in the south. The Congressional Budget Office, in 
its May 1992 report entitled, ``Paying for Highways, Airways, 
and Waterways: How Can Users Be Charged?'', estimated that the 
average cost per ton-mile from 1995-98 is 14.1 cents, almost 24 
times more than the cost of the Upper Mississippi River (.597 
cents.) The Corps estimates that there is a return of 40 cents 
for every Federal dollar invested in the river. These 
conclusions are based on the 97 barge movements that occurred 
in 1998. Since this CBO analysis and the Corps' estimate of 40 
cents for every Federal dollar invested were completed, barge 
traffic has fallen to a low of 4 barges in 2001. This change is 
a 96 percent reduction in barge traffic between 1998 and 2001, 
which has resulted in an even higher cost per ton-mile than CBO 
estimated for the period 1995-1998.
    The impacts to the environment and the low commercial use 
of the Apalachicola River led then-Secretary Westphal to 
describe the project in a letter of August 9, 2000 as not 
``economically justified or environmentally defensible.'' The 
Apalachicola River was named one of America's most endangered 
rivers by American Rivers in 2002. Various pieces of the ACF 
system have been listed as threatened or endangered by American 
Rivers since 1991. The ACF river project is listed as one of 
the nation's ``Top Ten Most Wasteful Projects'' in the report, 
``Troubled Waters,'' written by the National Wildlife 
Federation and Taxpayers for Common Sense in 2000. It was first 
listed as a project proposed for elimination in 2001 by the 
Green Scissors Report, written by Friends of the Earth, 
Taxpayers for Common Sense, the U.S. Public Interest Research 
Group, and others. In 2002, this report cited the project as a 
``Boondoggle for Barges.''

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short Title
    The act may be cited as the ``Restore the Apalachicola 
River Ecosystem Act'' or the ``RARE Act.''
Sec. 2. Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, Georgia, 
        Florida, and Alabama

                         SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

    This section modifies the project for navigation, 
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, located in 
Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, authorized by section 2 of the 
Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 17, chapter 19), and modified by 
the first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635, 
chapter 595), and the project for the West Point Reservoir, 
Chattahoochee River, Georgia, authorized by section 203 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182).
    First, this section deauthorizes the 9-foot by 100-foot 
channel between the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near 
Apalachicola, Florida, to Jim Woodruff Dam near Chattahoochee, 
Florida.
    Second, this section authorizes the Secretary of the Army, 
in consultation with the State of Florida, to develop a 
restoration plan for the Apalachicola River. The Secretary is 
required to coordinate with the State of Florida, the United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States 
Geological Survey in developing the plan. Upon completion, the 
Secretary shall submit the plan to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives.
    This section also specifies requirements for the plan. The 
sole goal of the plan is the reestablishment of the ecological 
integrity of the Apalachicola River basin ecosystem (including 
restoration of bendways, interconnecting waterways, sloughs, 
watersheds, associated land areas, and fish and wildlife 
habitat.) The plan shall reestablish an ecosystem that supports 
and sustains a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of 
organisms having species composition, diversity, and functional 
organization comparable to those of the natural habitat of the 
Apalachicola River. The plan shall also include a method of 
monitoring and assessing the biota, habitats, and water quality 
of the Apalachicola River basin for use in assessing 
restoration activities and impacts of restoration activities.
    This section authorizes funding for plan development of 
$4,000,000. It also requires that the Secretary of the Army 
engage in significant public outreach while developing the 
plan.
    This section also explicitly requires that activities 
conducted by the Army Corps under this section not interfere 
with water compact activities and negotiations being carried 
out as of the date of enactment of this Act with respect to the 
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, located in 
Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. This is a key element of S. 
2730. The committee does not intend for this legislation to 
interfere with the development of the Apalachicola, 
Chattahoochee, and Flint River compact being developed by the 
States of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama.
    Finally, this section includes a limitation, which states 
that nothing in this section limits the authority of any agency 
under any other provision of law to require compliance with any 
applicable statutory or regulatory requirement.

                          Legislative History

    Senator Graham (D-FL) introduced S. 2730 with Senator 
Nelson (D-FL) on July 16, 2002. It was referred to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works. No hearing was held 
on the bill. The committee considered the bill in a business 
meeting on September 26, 2002 and ordered the bill reported to 
the Senate.

                             Rollcall Votes

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to 
consider S. 2730 on September 26, 2002. The committee favorably 
reported the bill by voice vote. Senator Smith requested to be 
officially recorded as voting ``yes, with enthusiasm.'' 
Senators Inhofe, Bond, Chafee, and Specter requested to be 
recorded as voting ``no.''

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    The bill does not create any additional regulatory burdens, 
nor will it cause any adverse impact on the personal privacy of 
individuals.

                          Mandates Assessment

    In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4), the committee finds that S. 2730 would 
impose no unfunded mandates on State, local, or tribal 
governments.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the 
reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be 
included in the report. That statement follows:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, October 25, 2002.

Hon. James M. Jeffords, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2730, a bill to 
restore the Apalachicola River ecosystem.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie 
Middleton, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                            Dan L. Crippen.
                              ----------                              

S. 2730, Restore the Apalachicola River Ecosystem Act, as ordered 
        reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
        Works on September 26, 2002
Summary
    S. 2730 would deauthorize a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 
project for maintenance dredging of a 9-foot deep by 100-foot 
wide navigation channel along 107 miles of the Apalachicola. 
River. This channel is part of the Apalacfficola-Chattthoochee-
Flint Rivers navigation project which spans the States of 
Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. In addition, this bill would 
authorize the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Corps, 
to work with the State of Florida to develop a restoration plan 
for the Apalachicola River.
    Assuming appropriation action consistent with this 
legislation, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2730 would 
result in a net savings of about $6 million over the 2003-2007 
period. Enacting S. 2730 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues.
    S. 2730 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on the budgets of State, local, or 
tribal governments.
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government
    The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2730 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).


                 By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2003    2004    2005    2006    2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO
          APPROPRIATION
End Apalachicola Maintenance
 Dredging:
    Estimated Authorization            0      -2      -2      -2      -2
     Level......................
    Estimated Outlays...........       0      -2      -2      -2      -2

Apalachicola Restoration Plan:
    Estimated Authorization            2       0       0       0       0
     Level......................
    Estimated Outlays...........       1       1       0       0       0

Total Changes:
    Estimated Authorization            2      -2      -2      -2      -2
     Level......................
    Estimated Outlays...........       1      -1      -2      -2      -2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis of Estimate
    For this estimate, CEO assumes that S. 2730 will be enacted 
in fiscal year 2003 and that amounts will be appropriated to 
complete the restoration plan. Based on information from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CBO estimates that implementing 
S. 2730 would result in a net savings of about $6 million over 
the 2003-2007 period.
    S. 2730 would deauthorize an Army Corps project for 
maintenance dredging of a 9-foot deep by 100-foot wide 
navigation channel along 107 miles of the Apalachicola River. 
Currently, the Corps spends about $2 million annually to dredge 
this navigation channel. According to the Corps, suspending 
maintenance dredging on the Apalachicola River may affect the 
Corps's ability to dredge the Chattahoochee River as well as 
perform operations and maintenance work, including work on some 
locks and darns, along the entire Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint Rivers navigation project. It is uncertain, however, if 
and when other dredging and operations and maintenance work 
would be disrupted or discontinued. CBO estimates that 
implementing S. 2730 would save about $2 million a year 
starting in fiscal year 2004; however, savings could increase 
as other maintenance costs are discontinued.
    S. 2730 also would authorize the Corps to develop a 
restoration plan for the Apalachicola River in conjunction with 
the State of Florida at a total cost of $4 million. Under 
current law, the Corps would be responsible for approximately 
one-half of the cost of the restoration plan.
    CEO estimates that the Federal cost of the plan would be 
about $2 million over fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact
    S. 2730 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in TJMRA and would impose no costs on the 
budgets of State, local, or tribal governments.

Estimate Prepared By: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton (226-
2860); Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie 
Miller (225-3220); Impact on the Private Sector: Cecil 
McPherson (226-2949).

Estimate Approved By: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget and Analysis.

Estimate Prepared By: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton; Impact on 
State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller; Impact 
on the Private Sector: Lauren Marks.

Estimate Approved By: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

               Minority Views of Senators Bond and Crapo

    The legislation proposed would deauthorize an entire river 
system that affects three States, not simply Florida. 
Deauthorization of the Apalachiacola-Chattahoochee-Flint River 
System is opposed by State and local governments, communities, 
as well as businesses and industries. Such an action would have 
a significant negative economic impact on the communities that 
depend on the river system.
    There is a recognition by those opposed to deauthorization 
that there are a number of environmental concerns. To that end 
there has been an attempt in recent years to address those 
concerns. Most importantly, the FY2002 Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill included funding specifically for the Army 
Corps of Engineers to address ``Sand Mountain'' and the 
disposal of dredged spoils on the Apalachiacola River which 
were mentioned during consideration of the legislation.
    The amount of barge traffic that moves along the ACF was 
also raised. While opponents of deauthonzition concede that 
barge traffic has dropped off significantly in recent years, 
they would point to the lack of available water for navigation 
windows due to a multiyear drought rather than a lack of 
interest along the river in utilizing barges.
    Finally, any attempt to deauthorize the ACF would severely 
hamper already difficult on.-going water compact negotiations 
among the three States. These negotiations have been under 
discussion for more than 3 years now and very recently almost 
collapsed due to the very delicate situation associated with 
water allocations.
    It is our understanding that Senator Shelby has committed 
to working with Senator Graham and others to reach a reasonable 
solution for the ACF that would both protect the rivers' 
ecosystem while maintaining a Corps presence for navigation. 
Additionally, he is investigating options that would increase 
the amount of water available to the river system, such as 
additional reservoirs.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
requires the committee to publish changes in existing law made 
by the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no 
changes to existing law.

                                   - 
